HomeMy WebLinkAbout15.C.1. Consider Approval of a Letter with Recommendations Regarding the Met Council Environmental Services
IS.C.I.
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Mayor & City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Consider Approval of a Letter with Recommendations
Regarding the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services
Reconveyance of Interceptor No. 7023 & 7024 and
Lift Station No. 16 Serving Shakopee
DATE: April 19, 2005
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this agenda item is to request the City Council to approve a letter with
recommendations regarding the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES)
decision to reconvey or "turn-back" a segment of the MCES sanitary sewer interceptor,
forcemain and lift station L-16. A letter, a process flow chart, and a map showing the alignment
of the pipe in question are attached for your information.
BACKGROUND:
In accordance with State Statute 473.5111, the MCES has determined that the portion of the
sanitary sewer interceptor system from L-16 located one block north of the intersection of c.R.
101 and CSAH 17, through the Forcemain Segment No. 7024 and Gravity Interceptor No. 7023
to the Prior Lake Interceptor is no longer of regional benefit. In other words, this segment of
line only serves Shakopee and no other communities. The MCES wants to "turn back" this
segment of pipe in much the same manner as the County or State turns back a roadway that no
longer serves a regional purpose.
The City has 90 days to appeal this determination and respond in writing to the MCES if the
City objects to the local benefit determination. MCES put the City on notice on February 9,
2005. City staff was aware that the MCES wanted to reconvey the lift station,forcemain and
interceptor sewer to the City. By legislation the City has two years to work out with the MCES
staff a formal reconveyance agreement.
MCES staff and City staff met and discussed this issue. The televised tapes of the line
evaluated was from 1993 and staff has requested a retelevising of the lines to determine
condition ofthe line. MCES has agreed to this.
The long term ownership of this line could be a significant cost to the City in maintenance and
replacement.
It was constructed in the 1970's and could last several years without a major repair. Future
repairs and replacement of the system is an additional cost to the.City's Sanitary Sewer System.
With that in mind staff recommends that the City accept the reconveyance only if the MCES
agrees to the following:
1. That the MCES include a 10-year warranty for the reconveyed interceptor, forcemain
and lift station, as allowed by Minnesota Statute Section 473.511 Subd. 7 (c) provides
that "the (transfer) agreement may provide for the Council to share in the cost of
emergency repairs to the transferred interceptor for an agreed warranty period not to
exceed ten years..." MCES 's current policy is to offer a sliding scale warranty.
2. That the MCES be required to provide a SCADA system to Lift Station No. 16 to
match the City's Standard Lift Station design and for proper operation.
3. That the MCES repair the line, as necessary, based on inspection of new video
DVD's.
4. That the MCES credit the City the SAC units for Rahr Malting when Rahr comes off
the MCES system. This would allow the City to build a fund dedicated to the repair
and replacement ofthe interceptor in the future when it is required.
After City Council discussion on the proposed reconveyance, Council should direct staff to do
one of two options:
1. Send a letter to the MCES stating that the City objects to the local benefit determination.
2. Send a letter stating that the City does not object to the determination, provided that the
conditions enumerated above are incorporated into the "Reconveyance Agreement".
The Council should make changes, if desired, to the attached letter, which summarizes the
City's concerns identified by staff, and direct staff to send the letter.
Budf!et Impact:
The MCES action will not have an immediate or short term impact to the Sanitary Sewer
Enterprise Fund. In the long term this fund will need to be able to withstand a significant
impact when repairs or replacement are required.
AL TERNATIVES:
1. Approve the attached letter with comments regarding the MCES decision to reconvey L-16,
Forcemain Segment No. 7004 and Interceptor No. 7024 as presented or with modifications.
2. Table or deny this agenda item for a specific reason.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative No.1.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Approve the attached letter with comments regarding the MCES decision to reconvey L-16,
Forcemain Segment No. 7004 and Interceptor No. 7024 as presented or with modifications.
~~
h 'fH)L! .
. ruce Loney
Public Works Director
BUpmp
ENGRlEMPFOLDERlPPENNINGTON/COUNCIURECONVEYMCES
~
SHAKOPEE
April 20, 2005
Mr. William Moore
General Manager
Environmental Services, Metropolitan Council
230 East Fifth Street
St. Paul, MN 55101-1626
RE: City of Shakopee comments on the MCES Interceptor Reconveyance
MSB 7023, MSB 7024 and Lift Station No. 16
Dear Mr. Moore:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide our input on the MCES's proposed decision to
reconvey segments MSB 7023, MSB 7024 and Lift Station No. 16 to the City. At the April
19,2005 City Council meeting, the issue of objecting to the MCES determination that the pipe
in question has no local significance was discussed. The City Council also discussed whether
to accept the reconveyance subject to certain conditions. The City Council does not object to
the MCES determination of local benefit and would request the following conditions be
considered for the reconveyance agreement:
. That the MCES include a lO-year warranty for the reconveyed interceptors and Lift Station
No. 16, as per State Statute.
. That the MCES be required to construct a SCADA system on Lift Station No. 16 to match
the City's Standard Lift Station design for proper operation.
. That the MCES repair the line, as necessary, to meet good operation conditions as
determined on inspection of new video DVD's.
. That the MCES credit the City the SAC units for Rahr Malting once Rahr Malting comes
off line of the MCES system.
If you have any questions regarding these matters, please call me at (952)233-9361.
Sincerely,
Bruce Loney. P.E.
Public Works Director
BUpmp
ENGRlEMPLOYEEFOLDERlPPENNlNGTONILETTERSIMCES
Cc: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
COMMUNITY PRIDE SINCE 1857
129 Holmes Street South' Shakopee, Minnesota' 55379-1351 . 952-233-9300 . FAX 952-233-3801 . www.cLshakopee.mn.us
Page 1 of 1
Bruce Loney
From: Thomson, James J. Dthomson@Kennedy-Graven.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 16,200512:16 PM
To: Bruce Loney (E-mail)
Subject: Met Council's Reconveyance Letter
Bruce,
I reviewed the February 10, 2005 letter from Bill Moore at the Met Council regarding the reconveyance to the City
of Interceptor 7023 and 7024, and Lift Station 16. The proposed reconveyance is being done pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes,Section 473,5111. That section addresses the reconveyance of an "interceptor," which is
defined in Section 473.121 to include "pumping stations." (I assume that is another term for a "lift station" but let
me know if there is a difference.)
The city has 90 days from the date of the Met Council's decision to request that a hearing be conducted. The
request must be in writing and must set forth the basis for the city's objection to the Met Council's determination.
Failure to make such a request means that the Met Council's decision is final. According to Mr, Moore's letter, the
Met Council made its decision on February 9,2005, so the city has until approximately May 9th to file its written
objection.
I don't know enough about the facts yet to make a determination of whether the interceptor "continue to be of
benefit for use as a local facility." If you have any doubt about that, let me know and we can talk about it more.
Ultimately, I would recommend that the city council make the final decision on whether to object to the Met
Council's decision. If the council does object, an Administrative Law Judge would be assigned to make a final
decision on the issue.
Bottom line -- the question of whether the interceptor "continues to be of benefit for use as a local facility" is more
of an operational one than a legal one. I can certainly help, though, if you have any question about what that
statutory phrase means.
FYI -- the statute requires that a transfer agreement be entered into between the Met Council and the city, if the
local benefit issue is resolved. We would want to get copies of agreements that the Met Council has entered into
with other cities.
Let me know if there is anything else you need from me on this.
Jim
3/20/2005
. #-s
...> .
. ~
SHAKOPEE
February 17, 2005
r""'::~.."'-~~
LkJim.-TheInson
Kennedy & Graven
470 Pillsbury Center
200 S. Sixth Street
Mpls., MN 55402
RE: Reconveyance of Metropolitan Council futerceptor 7023 and 7024 and
Lift Station 16 to the City of Shakopee
Dear Jim:
Please find attached a letter from Metropolitan Council in regard to their action to convey
MSB 7023 and 7024 and Lift Station 16, from Lift Station 16 to Junction Box 4 to the
City of Shakopee. Also attached is a map showing the reconveyance items and Statute
Chapter 473, which enables the Metropolitan Council to dispose of non-metropolitan
interceptors.
fu their letter, the City of Shakopee has 90 days in which to disagree. with the local
benefit determination of the reconveyance items. The City of Shakopee does have local
sewers which drain into Lift Station 16, however, staffs question is whether or not the
City can object to local benefit based on yourlegal determination or advice.
Please review these items and advise on whether the City of Shakopee can contest the
local benefit determination, or that the City should not object to the reconveyance of
these items.
If you have any questions in regard to this letter and the attachments. please feel free to
call me.
Sincerely,
~cftC
Public Works Director
BUpmp
ENGRlEMPLOY EEFOLDER/PPEl'<"NINGTONiLETTE RSiMETCOUNCI L
Cc: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
COMMUNITY PRIDE SINCE 1857
12'..) H(J!mt:'~ S!r:~d South 0 Sh\Jknp~~. .\linnl....\)t~ ' 5~~7lJ~ I ~~l . lJ~:.:3.~--';-;lJO ' rA.\ ~~~.23~.~:~ln - \'. \'. lx.i.:i.:--hakopcc.mn.lh
~ Metropolitan Council <<
Environmental Seruices
February 10, 2005
Mark McNeill, City Manager
City of Shakopee
129 Holmes Street S.
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-1328
SUBJE0f: Council Actions regarding Interceptor MSB 7023, MSB 7024 and Lift Station 16
Dear Mr. Boyles,
On February 9,2005 The Metropolitan Council approved placing the portion of interceptor MSB
7023, MSB 7024 and Lift Station 16, from Lift Station 16 to junction box 4 at the intersection of
interceptor 6904 and 7120, on the reconveyance list. Council actions included detennining MSB
7023, MSB 7024 and Lift Station 16 are in "good" operating condition and are a local benefit
and naming the city of Shakopee the benefiting unit of government.
Based on the above Council detenninations, and in accordance with Minn, State Sta.. 473,5111,
this letter is to notify the City that should the city of Shakopee disagree with the "local benefit"
detennination the City must respond in writing and has 90 days I which to do so, by writing to;
William Moore, General Manager,
Environmental Services, Metropolitan Council
230 East Fifth Street
Mears Park Centre, 6th Floor
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1626
If the City does not object to the "local benefit" detemlination no reply to the Council is
necessary and by legislatioIl the City has two years to work out with Council staff a fonnal
reconveyance agreement. Council staff will contact City staff to begin work on the reconveyance
agreement. During this time frame Council staff will address concerns and issues City staff may
have, as allowed by legislation,
Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to call my staff Donald Bluhm, 651-602-
1116 or Deborah Rose, 651~602-1479.
Sincerely, C;."
Lt. !~.
t. '. r I
J'~""""".-' ;'.
William G, Moore,
General Manager
cc: BtuceLoney, Bill Moeller, Donald Bluhm, Deborah Rose
ww\....mctroc:ollncil.org Metro Info Line 602.1888
230 East fiflh5lreel . SI.PauI.Minnesota55101-1626. (651)602-1005' Fax602.113.<3' 'm'291.090.f
All Equal OpfJOrwni!}I E!t1fJloy/.'r
. .--.' . .'''-..-.'-''--''--.''-._-'''-'''-.''r~.__....i~.~.~___// ~._.-_.---_.._...-..---- . -'. .
I ." . -----.--~.--- -----.-.-------.,.-.-~ A MCEf? Uft ~atlon
, --G~~
;
\ .~.If.... Forcemaln
) = Siphon
( ~__._ Other MCES Interceptor
'. ,[,;;;;;;;;li'",-
, '1' 0 ,.
l :'~ C' mmumty Boundary
; -
! ..-~~~~.~....,'_G!\;-Jl
'F; '~~(.~
.k! ,. .,,_ ,,/ . . 1:fJ#.f:
/':'1' ~~\''''''. . ~
." ~}i \.-:.:\ ~~\\
. "41 \\'& ~.".~... '\'.~ ~
. '> .."i< l:>lll:)_
I,.~:II '."". ?: ~ ;.r.lt ~'~-;.h'"'~'''
. __ ... '.. l."I- -~, ,.,'""" .".
._...... ..... -. ',,: K 4.\ ...,~~.....-~ .
. ____-~--- _," #: ' . ~J5j : 'l . '=: ~-l.-.:i,,<f..:iI;.t.'~ . .t.
.....;;.~~."""~.,..,...".~....~.,...,,~_-;2f. ~~ .a!~ ~~. ~;.,,,,-,;s~ ~,<'-:C~
/' '"'' _-------:..;". .'. .~~"!1' \~~......,.. ~ "" . .'S;;p--- .".
/:,;;~1'-"- '-~~ ~ ~~ '-,~ ~~ .~
'r.!~ LiG ..,-~~ty '-'''-;,0; . .';";~"';:.~::"~'.&$".-'" .t1S~~~ .,<,,;.l::~~
~ ;:;...~ .:_/ 1024 ...............!t........"... . ~ ,. ... ........~,~
. :,. " " .l..._.,.~.,c"'.~~"",."""''''~_.._~..'''~"k,>''-_'''-~,~~ ~ I
._ ',~ ~...::~ '. T
. ...~ f --,:,,":.:~;<;!?.{J"I7r . \
j. i.;;,' .,...1'.~.i~~f--~-~~Ec-----i~~~~~~~~;l:~~_:~:_
~ 1, ., --_.~'-'..._-' -. I . ....
cl : '., ....n.... ,,; .._...). "-~:~r- . . -'.\ r~.---."'-~.._.__ J -'~'''''',....,.""
, S h.a k 0 pee ) I. --.n..... !
-"- ,-....1 .-" . i -'--. I
, ," "\~t::i ( L___ --~'--J
, . ' ~ ..-.._ ul
I . .".-. -.. ,~
. .., .-- re'
.... ;.H .,', .. t c( i
, I' i iTl I 11.1
Minnesota Statutes 2004, 473.5111 Page 1 of 5
Minnesota Statutes 2004~ Table of Chapters
Table of contents for Chapter 473
473.5111 Transfer, disposal of nonmetropolitan
interceptor.
Subdivision 1. Definitions. In this section, the
definitions in this subdivision apply, except as otherwise
expressly provided or indicated by the context.
(a) The term "in good operating condition" with reference
to an interceptor means that the facility is currently
operational and that the pipes or sewer mains portion only of
the facility is expected to have structural integrity, as
appropriate for the proposed use of the pipe, for a period of
ten or more years after the date of a determination or
certification of good operating condition under this section.
(b) The term "interceptor" has the meaning given it in
section 473.121, subdivision 23, and includes a designated
portion of an interceptor.
(c) The term "local government unit," with respect to an
interceptor that is a storm sewer, means a local governmental
unit as defined in section 473.121, subdivision 6. The term
local government unit, with respect to an interceptor that is
not a storm sewer, means a local government unit as defined in
section 473.501, subdivision 3.
(d) The term "storm sewer" means a facility that currently
carries exclusively water runoff, surface water, or other
drainage, rather than sewage.
(e) The term "use as a local facility" includes use as
either a sanitary sewer or a storm sewer.
Subd. 2. Nonmetropolitan status determination. The
council may determine that an interceptor is no longer needed to
implement the council's comprehensive plan for the collection,
treatment, and disposal of sewage in the metropolitan area. If
the council makes the determination, it may use the procedures
in this section to sell, transfer, abandon, or otherwise dispose
of the interceptor.
subd. 3. Local benefit determination; transfer to
benefited community. (a) If the council uses the procedures
in this section, it must, with regard to each interceptor for
which the determination is made in subdivision 2, determine
whether or not the interceptor continues to be of benefit for
use as a local facility for one or more local government units.
If the council determines that the interceptor does not continue
to be of benefit as a local facility, it must notify each local
government unit in which the interceptor is located, of this
determination.
(b) Such a government unit may notify the council in
writing within 90 days from receipt of notice that it believes
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn,us/stats/473/5111.html 12/8/2004
Minnesota Statutes 2004, 473.5111 Page:i. of 5
r
~the interceptor provides a local benefit to the government unit
and that it desires to take possession of the interceptor. The
council may extend the time for a government unit to provide
this notice. If a government unit delivers a written notice to
the council in accordance with this paragraph, the council must
transfer the interceptor at no cost to the government unit by
preparing and transmitting a bill of sale for the facility and
quit claim deeds for any property rights associated with the
facility that are no longer needed for the council's purposes.
Upon receipt of the bill of sale, the government unit is the
owner of the interceptor and thereafter responsible for its
operation and maintenance.
(c) If the council does not receive notice from a
government unit under paragraph (b), the council may sell,
transfer, abandon, or otherwise dispose of the interceptor in
such manner as it may deem fit.
Subd. 4. Preliminary council determinations; notice to
local government units. If the council determines that an
interceptor continues to be of benefit for use as a local
facility for one or more local government units, it must
designate those units that are so benefited and the portions of
the interceptor that should properly be transferred to the
benefited units. It must also determine whether the interceptor
is in good operating condition and, if not, the necessary
repairs, and their cost, needed to put the interceptor in good
operating condition. The council must provide written notice to
each designated unit of the council's determinations in this
subdivision.
subd. 5. contested case; administrative and judicial
review. (a) The council's preliminary determinations under
subdivision 4 may be contested by a local government unit which
has been designated by the council under that subdivision. The
unit has 90 days from receiving notice of the council's
determinations under subdivision 4 within which to make a
written request to the council for a hearing on the council's
determinations. The unit in its request for hearing must
specify the determinations with which it disagrees and its
position with regard to those determinations. If within 90 days
no designated unit has requested a hearing in writing, the
council's preliminary determinations become its final decision
with respect to the determinations under subdivision 4 and the
final decision is binding on all designated units. If a
designated unit requests a hearing, the request for hearing must
be granted and the hearing must be conducted by the Office of
Administrative Hearings in the manner provided by chapter 14 for
contested cases. The subject of the hearing must extend only to
those council determinations under subdivision 4 for which a
hearing has been requested. The council and all local
government units designated by the council under subdivision 4
are parties to the contested case proceeding.
(b) Charges of the Office of Administrative Hearings must
be divided equally among the council and those parties who
requested a hearing under paragraph (a). otherwise, each party
is responsible for its own costs and expenses in the proceeding.
(c) After receipt of the report of the Office of
htto:/IWW'N.revisor.leg.state.mn,us/stats/473/5111.html 12/8/2004
I
Minnesota Statutes 2004, 473.5111 Page 3 of 5
.,
Administrative Hearings, the council must make a final decision
with respect to the determinations in subdivision 4. Any party ....
to the contested case proceeding who is aggrieved by the final
decision of the council may make a judicial appeal in the manner
provided in chapter 14 for contested cases.
Subd. 6. Council options. (a) If the council's final
decision after a proceeding under subdivision 5 is that the
interceptor does not continue to be of benefit for use as a
local facility, it may sell, transfer, abandon, or otherwise
dispose of the interceptor in such manner as it may deem fit.
(b) If the council's final decision is that the interceptor
continues to be of benefit for use as a local facility, but is
not in good operating condition, it may either:
(1) continue to operate the interceptor until sold,
transferred, abandoned, or otherwise disposed of in such manner
as it may deem fit; or
(2) repair the interceptor as necessary to put the
interceptor in good operating condition, certify that it is in
good operating condition, and proceed under subdivision 7.
(c) If the council's final decision is that the interceptor
continues to be of benefit for use as a local facility and is in
good operating condition, it must proceed under subdivision 7.
Subd. 7. Transfer agreement; local benefit charge;
transfer to benefited. community. (a) This subdivision applies
if an interceptor designated in subdivision 2 continues to be of
benefit as a local facility and is determined or, after repair
is certified, by the council to be in good operating condition.
(b) The council and each local government unit that has
been determined to have a benefit in accordance with the
procedures in this section must negotiate and enter into an
agreement governing transfer of an interceptor that has been
determined to have benefit for use as a local facility.
(c) The agreement may provide for the council to share in
the cost of emergency repairs to the transferred interceptor for
an agreed warranty period not exceeding ten years beyond the
later of:
(1) the date of the preliminary council determination of
good operating condition in subdivision 4; or
(2) the date of the certification in subdivision 6,
paragraph (b) , clause (2) .
(d) The agreement may also contain arrangements between one
or more local government units concerning shared use, ownership,
operation, or maintenance of the transferred interceptor.
(e) If the interceptor is not a storm sewer and is not
transferred in its entirety to local government units, the
council must charge a local benefit charge for the portions of
the interceptor not transferred.
htto://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/473/5111.html 12/8/2004
Minnesota Statutes 2004, 473.5111 Page 4 of 5
0'
'.,.. (f) The charge must begin on the later of:
(1) two years from the date of the determination in
subdivision 2; or
(2) the day after the completion of any contested case
proceeding under subdivision 5, including any judicial appeals.
(g) The local benefit charge must be:
(1) based on the costs of overhead, operation, maintenance,
rehabilitation, and debt service of that portion of the
interceptor not transferred;
(2) charged to all local government units which have not
taken ownership of their allocated portion of the interceptor;
and
(3) allocated in accordance with the final decision of the
council under subdivision 5.
(h) The local benefit charge is considered a charge payable
by the local government unit to the council under section
473.521 and must continue to be paid by the local government
unit until the interceptor is transferred to it.
(i) If the facility is a storm sewer and is not transferred
in its entirety to the benefited local government unit or units
by the later of:
(1) two years from the date of the determination in
subdivision 2; or
(2) the day after the completion of any contested case
proceeding under subdivision 5, including any judicial appeals,
then the facility is transferred effective on the later of the
dates in clauses (1) and (2) , by operation of law, to the unit
or units determined to have a benefit in accordance with the
procedures under this section.
(j) The transfer is not dependent on an agreement between
the council and the local government unit or units and is at no
cost to the receiving unit.
(k) The local government unit is thereafter the owner of
the interceptor and responsible for its operation and
maintenance.
(1) The council must prepare and transmit to the
appropriate government unit or units bills of sale for the
facility, and quit claim deeds for any property rights
associated with the facility which are no longer needed for the
council's purposes.
Subd. 8. Power to operate, maintain, and repair
facility. until such time as an interceptor is sold,
transferred, abandoned, or otherwise disposed of under this
section, the council has all powers under this chapter to
operate, maintain, and repair the interceptor. After transfer
http://www.revisor.leg,state,mn.us/stats/473/S 111,html 12/8/2004
Minnesota Statutes 2004, 473.5111 P~ge 5 6f5
of an interceptor, the council has all powers under this chapter ,
to provide emergency repairs under any agreed warranty period ...
incorporated into a transfer agreement under subdivision 7.
HIST: 2002 c 278 s 1
copyright 2004 by the Office of Revisor of statutes, state of Minnesota.
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/473/S111.html 12/8/2004